Prove Evolution: Win $250,000!

Creation Science Evangelism ^ | N/A | Dr. Ken Hovind

[handk]

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
formerly $10,000, offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.*  My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

 

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

 

My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

[BMCDA]

Drat! You beat me to it.

[VadeRetro]

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that . . . [b]rought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

Really? Biological evolution caused the Big Bang? Kent Hovind is an idiot!

[medved]

The basic problems of evolutionism include a short list of things sufficient to demolish any normal theory, i.e. any theory which was not being held for irrational reasons.

Because of the nature of the laws of probability, the likelihood of any new kind of animal arising, with new kinds of organs, a new basic plan for existence etc. is a high-order infinitessimal, i.e. you are talking about a zero-probability event.

Now, it might be one thing to believe that one or two such events had ever occurred in the history of the world, but evolution posits an endless series of such events, i.e. it stands everything we know about probability on its head and requires a believer to pretend that such laws do not exist.

Moreover, natural selection could not plausibly select on the basis of hoped-for or future functionality; all you'd get would be a random walk around some norm for the old function. I.e. you'd have to come up with rationales for why an arm 10% of the way to becoming a wing offered an advantage, and then why an arm 20% offered an advantage over the 10% creatures, and then why an arm 30% of the way to being a wing....

Moreover, in real life, in trying to get to a new kind of a creature such as a flying bird, assuming you somehow miraculously evolved the first necessary new feature, then by the time the second evolved, the first would have de-evolved and either become vestigial or disappeared outright since it would have been useless - disfunctinal the entire while the second was evolving.

Darwininian gradualism has basically been abandoned at this point due to the lack of intermediates in the fossil record and also due to the Haldane dilemma and other problems of population genetics, basically the impossible time spans needed to spread genetic changes through sizeable populations of animals. The new semi-official replacement theory is the Gould/Eldredge notion of Punctuated Equilibria or "punc/eek". Unfortunately it turns out that punc/eek has even worse conceptual problems than the theory it is meant to replace:

It amounts to a pure pseudoscience since it involves a claim that the lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. In other words, it amounts to a claim that a theory can be valided by a lack of evidence rather than evidence.

It amounts to a claim that inbreeding is a good thing and the source of all genetic advancement.

It ignores the familiar "gambler's problem" and in fact requires yet another kind of a reversal of overwhelming probabilistic laws in requiring tiny groups of animals to repeatedly spread out and overwhelm vastly larger groups, countless billions of times.

It ignores the fact that in real life, globally adapted animals invariably prevail over parochially adapted ones.

Gould and Eldredge do not even talk about a mechanism for the rapid change which must occur amongst the tiny groups of peripheral isolates which they try to claim are the salvation of evolutionism. Realistically, that makes punk-eek a sort of a conjecture rather than a theory. A theory is supposed to have explainatory power, and they don't even try.

Punc-eek does not really succeed in avoiding the notion of large-scale violation of probabilistic laws; it merely substitutes one set of such violations for another. Alexander Mebane of the Tampa Bay Skeptics notes:

But it may be questioned, on obvious probability grounds, whether this way of accounting for the observed absence of intermediates will really wash. Admitting that every intermediate stage "must have" a small population, we may nevertheless observe that there must have been a far greater number of them than of the stable, " finished" species known to us, since (according to the Darwinist picture) every species-transition must necessarily pass through several intermediate stages. That greater number would increase the likelihood that some intermediate forms, here and there, would chance to be preserved as fossils. And the dogma further requires that the larger transitions - between different genera, families, orders, classes, and even different phyla, must all have come about in just the same gradual and continuous manner, simply by a long- continued succession of normal species-transitions! We have all seen "genealogical trees" drawn by evolutionists, to show the order in which these taxonomic groups have all come into existence over a long period, by successive "branchings from a common root".

But it must be asked: Where are all the fossils that should have been left by the many millions of species that this tree requires to have once existed on its trunk, boughs, and branches, before its final branchings took place? Why are none of these seen in the fossil record of the period during which the evolutionists' tree requires them to have lived?

Why have none of these myriad intermediates survived to the present?

What about the recent cenezoic mammal explosion? Why have none of the myriad intermediate forms from that ever been found?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[foolish-one]

I see your point, but it's still a matter of perspective. If you believe in evolution, then obviously all fossils (and all species) are transitional. However, if you are trying to convince a nonbeliever, then you have to show proof of (or a strong case for) a logical transition from something to something else in order to obtain agreement on a foundational piece in your argument for evolution.

Volley (and have fun!).

[Diamond]

Evolution does not exclude purpose...That's ignorance perpetuated by Creationists.

None other than high priest Richard Dawkins says that we live in a universe in which there is "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Cordially,

[foolish-one]

Maybe. The trilobites are interesting, aren't they?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The journey of a thousand leagues starts with but a single step. (Attributed to Kung Fu Tze)

[Hunble]

Might as well ask, "Prove reality exists and win a million dollars."

Today, with this topic, that was the most profound quote of the day. So profound in many ways.

Of course Medved, your theories are always outstanding to read and I love each and every one of them.

Please never stop posting your theories!

[Dementon]

Placemarker

[jlogajan]

Please never stop posting your theories!

Yeah, one can never get enough of that Velikovskyian "Venus popped out of Jupiter 3000 years ago, bumped into earth, and took up a perfectly circular orbit around the sun" theories. You can't get comparable laughs like that no matter how much you pay!

[rucrazee]

You are missing my point completely and perhaps you didn't read through my ENTIRE, long-winded post. I am not arguing for a minute the proofs cannot be found in the basics of MICROEVOLUTION, but I am arguing that Macroevolution cannot be empirically, scientifically proven. It is a belief. The basic model is that life came into existence through chance, without an intelligent creator. It's a model where a conclusion has already been agreed upon, and adjustments are made to support the conclusion. Evolutionists argue that these changes to the theory are just a regular part of good and proper science, but what if the conclusion itself is wrong? If my conclusion is that the earth is flat, I can give some pretty good arguments to support my theory, but ultimately I will be proved wrong. Macroevolution is flat earth science, that has already reached a conclusion and attempts to construct evidences to support it. Evolution is a belief. Creationism is a belief. If I use the Bible, quote from scientists who support a Christian worldview, or scientists who support intelligent design, you will most certainly dismiss it. You will say they are biased, they don't understand science, it's religion, etc. I say touche! I have heard it all many, many times. You also will assume that I have not read guys like Dawkins, Hawking, Gould and others water carriers of the theory. There are also guys like Behe, Phillip Johnson, Dembski and others who make sound arguments for intelligent design. Now we can argue the fact that there are absolutely no scientific evidences or laws that support non-life producing life. We can talk about atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons, molecules, DNA, etc., but the real question is where did they come from. If they are the building blocks of life, then who made the blocks. If these blocks built something, then intelligence is at work, not chance. These threads nearly always deteriorate into name calling, and personal attacks rather than sound arguments. No one likes to have their worldview shaken. Any way, enough already.

[medved]

Please never stop posting your theories!

Hast seen the one about The Tower of Babel, and the Question of Antediluvian Language?

I mean, I'd like to see the evolutionist dog-and-pony show for that one evolving...

[BMCDA]

Of course there isn't a universal purpose for every one of us. But that doesn't mean you cannot define a purpose for yourself.

[tortoise]

Just ask him and he will show you.

Ask who?

[PatrickHenry]

A very few links from the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 17].

[jlogajan]

if you are trying to convince a nonbeliever, then you have to show proof of (or a strong case for) a logical transition from something to something else

But in "proving" evolution in which there are no specific species that are any more "transitional" than any others, a "doubter" demanding to see such a "transitional" critter is pre-imposing constraints on nature that may or may not exist.

You are never going to get grandpa, grandma, pa, ma, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter fossils -- all lined up nice in a row -- well at least the probabilities are against it.

What you get is random snapshots in time. There are plenty of examples of incremental changes in the fossil record and these have been posted to these threads all the time.

But of course, since these snapshots are always going to be specific species, one can always ask, "where is the proof", "where is the transistion between this one and the previous."

As someone pointed -- each "transitional" species found opens up two new "gaps". The seekers of "transitional" species simply cannot be satisfied because their actual definition is vague and arbitrary -- the status they seek, "transitional species" is not a reality. All species are at some "transitional" stage between what they were and what they will become.

[jlogajan]

Ask who?

Who's on first.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: al·che·my
Pronunciation: 'al-k&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English alkamie, alquemie, from Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French alquemie, from Medieval Latin alchymia, from Arabic al-kImiyA', from al the + kImiyA' alchemy, from Late Greek chEmeia
Date: 14th century
1 : a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life
2 : a power or process of transforming something common into something special
3 : an inexplicable or mysterious transmuting
- al·chem·i·cal /-mi-k&l/ also al·chem·ic /al-'ke-mik/ adjective
- al·chem·i·cal·ly /-mi-k(&-)lE/ adverb